| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (43)

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 7:06PM smg77 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
SOE: games so bad they have to give them away.

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 8:45PM drunkingamebar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smg77 I wouldn't say SOE games are bad, but SOE doesn't handle games well.

After my experience with SWG, I've been steering clear of SOE; however I was interested in DCUO, but they were building hype with no backing. "You can do all these great things!" They never would show game play of those great things, just talk about it. And when they did, it was lolnowayinhellwouldipayforthat scenario.

F2P really needs a micro-transaction format adjustment, the cash grab mindset is worse than a subscription in most cases. Be nice to play a game and enjoy it, rather than fretting over a purchase to "help" you have fun.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 9:24PM Ehra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@smg77

Both EQ1 and 2 still seem to be doing pretty well.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 7:32PM Graill440 said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
+1

This guy is a blithering clown. Free to play will never outstrip subs in revenue, for one simple reason, it doesnt exist. What these clowns envision as free to play is not. People will have to buy the game initially, or buy hours, or buy unlocks, or buy this, or buy that, no one person can be so ignorantly stupid as to believe they can play a free game, quality or otherwise and the company not make money, but then that demographic these companies are shooting for are the dimmest part of society, they hope for this, they hope for the addiction quite a few have to fund that "free" microtransaction store.

I dont have to remind anyone these companies bank on the ignorance of the average gamer, hoping they will subcribe to their "free" game to be a VIP! or STPMPVIP!, hoping they will spend more than they should in their store for this "free" game.

Wake up folks. Its like a large portion of you want to believe in what a politician has to say. Whats even sadder is that supposedly good MMO sites are giving airtime to these clowns, as if they had something invested.

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 8:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Graill440

Yeah, because revenue didn't increase for Lotro, DDO, and AoC when they went FTP. Oh wait...

Hybrid FTP and sub MMOs are the future.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2011 3:29AM bobfish said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Graill440

Free to play in its own right won't, but SOE and Smedley are talking about Freemium, where you have mico transactions and optional subscriptions.

That will eclipse subscription only.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2011 5:26AM Valkenr said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@Graill440

+1 for the blithering clown, Smedly is one of the worse things to happen to the MMO market, you can't get much more hypocritical than him.


F2P is a great way for sub-par games to make money. And SOE is the king of Sub-par games, the day they killed SWG, admitted it, and did nothing, the company started churning out f2p garbage to soak up cash.

The only good F2P game is League of Legends, because you can't buy power. Every other f2p in game market I've looked in has power increasing items, no matter how small, in the end it does make a difference.

The F2P market is also horribly skewed, any population number that comes out of any F2P game is a huge overestimation, I guarantee you that 90% of the F2P community has their hand in multiple games. So if you're going to say "Free Realms hit 2 000 000 players", that number includes all the people that say "why not?!" and downloaded the game, played it for 10 minutes, realized it was garbage and required payment to actually do anything fun and uninstalled it, they are now officially wasted space in SOE's horribly protected database(thanks for the new debit number SOE!)

While on the subscription side of things you have happy players, knowing they are getting all they can out of the game for 2 hours of minimum wage pay per month. When you say "Hello Kitty Online reached 10 000 000 subscribers, that means you are making roughly 150 000 000 per month.

In general, a f2p game requires upwards of 2 to 3 times the cost of a subscription game, to get the same level of content.

If the company is well established, and has 50 million to dump into a 5-7 year development, A subscription is going to be the way to go.

The only problem now is no game has managed to hold on to more than 1/3 of it's purchasers past month 4(end of 3 month sub pack) or in the case of DCUO: hold on to 1/12th of it's purchasers past 2 weeks.


now on the topic of DCUO and F2P, how can i put this? THE F&$^NG GAME WAS SUPPOSED TO BE F2P FROM THE START, go look at all my deleted posts on the DCUO boards explaining to all the "this game sucks" post, why it sucked. The moment i hit 30 in 3 days, and got bored with the "end game" (50% recycled) content in 5 days, i said "hey.. wait... wasn't this game suppose.... free???? *goes to internet* 'SOE heavily eluded to a f2p model' " DURR!!

end_mini_rant(true);

Then the whole "The subscription pays for all the new content updates on a monthly basis"
Patch 1, 2 months, patch 2: 3 months patch 3: 4 months, hacked, see a pattern?
But wait! There's more
Were making more content, BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SUCKERS!!!!, all you who want to play with Hard Light get to give us another month of sub! But were going to make it free in 2 months, so HA, We have yet again scammed money from the only loyal fans we have(those still playing DCUO after month 4) BUT YOU GET SUPER SERVERS!!!! OOZZ MY GAWDZ!

bottom line, F2P sucks, SOE Sucks, Subs rule!!

Commence the down voting!!
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2011 11:54AM Spookimitsu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Valkenr

John Smedley = The Peter Molyneaux syndrome applied to MMOs??

/weep

I hope DCUO fares better. It's kinda boring on the PS3....
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 7:34PM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Smed's conclusions are hardly shocking

bad games used to shut down for good, now they get a second shot with F2P
good games will still make heaps of money going sub based

but "good game" is an alien concept for Smed, he has never developed one, so as I said, his conclusions arent surprising...

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 7:35PM Oyjord said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Did I slip into a coma and actually wake up in 2025? I must have, for back in my day, back in 2011, Smedley had no MMO credibility.

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 10:34PM winterborn said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Oyjord

Smedbucks still has no cred, everyone knows he is a lieing, greedy POS.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 11:24PM Faith said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Oyjord

I still would still say Smed has negative credibility, most of the arrogant decisions made by him and the arrogant people he placed in charge of games like DCUO are the reason those games failed and now have to go to a F2P model because they weren't successful enough to make heaps of money like the successfully run games can.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 7:47PM Paradigm68 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sounds like someone is trying to justify making crappy games.

So I'm supposed to be happy that in the future no one will develop a game good enough to succeed on a subscription basis?

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 8:34PM Yellowdancer said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Paradigm68

Good is subjective.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 9:45PM Paradigm68 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Yellowdancer Good enough to sustain enough interest and make a profit via subscriptions however is a quantifiable metric.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 10:20PM Furdinand said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Paradigm68 Why does the vector of the profit matter? Money is money.
Reply

Posted: Sep 20th 2011 11:59AM Paradigm68 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Furdinand Really? Ok, so it doesn't matter if a company takes in more (profit) or less (loss) than it is spending?
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 8:14PM Tizmah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I thought subscription based MMOs were doing pretty fine before. It wasn't until lackluster MMOs began to adopt it to try and increase sales that every other lackluster one decided to do it too. And once everyone starts doing it, everyone is right back where they started with probably marginal gains to not really be worth it in comparison.

Posted: Sep 20th 2011 9:41PM Valkenr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tizmah
The 2004-2008ish MMO market was the best, right before Warhammer released 1.1 and unbalanced the game thinking the problem was class balance, not the fact that 66% of the population played on the "Evil" side in a open world campaign MMO. It scares me that some of those people are in the ToR team sometimes. Anyway, that was when there was this huge population of PvP players with nowhere to go(now i think they are mostly playing LoL)

It was a great time, All the highschoolers where playing F2P games(that really didn't need any money put in to progress, Joymax was pretty good about that. Then you had WoW, WAR, SWG, the EQ's and CoH. All where solid games, but WoW got old, SWG got the smedly smack, WAR took a population hit and din't consolidate server fast enough, EQ got old and COH was ruined with Issue 13's PvP revamp, and it got old.

Warhammer seemed to be the start of the market fall, they released the game a good 4-6 months before it was ready(thanks EA), and every few months after that another game would come out, riddled with bugs, KNOWN BUGS, some that made the game unplayable. And this cycle will continue.

My hope is that whenever ToR comes out(the longer it takes, the more hope i have) they will have a generally bug free game, nothing game breaking, stuff like seeing through solid objects at the correct camera angle, not Warhammer, running along and step in an invisible hole and get stuck and have to get a CSR because there is no /stuck command yet.

The MMO community is counting on bioware to set the new example.
Reply

Posted: Sep 19th 2011 8:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
the MMO market is too saturated with games. freemium games pretty much eliminates the initial investment in the game.
what i hate is how the industry is bastardizing the term "free to play" and its model. f2p has no restrictions in its content but is supported by micro transactions which is why it became popular in the first place. p2p games that switch over, don't go f2p but go freemium - a hybrid model. a distinction that they take advantage over ignorant players.

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: October 19 - 25, 2014

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 8:00PM

Perfect Ten: My World of Warcraft launch memories

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 12:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW